As contempt for modern art grows, the internet is quick to dismiss abstract art as laughable and “unreal.” More often than not— especially in the eyes of non-artists—realism is considered the epitome of true artistry. This perception stems from long being held in high regard, being the ultimate skill an aspiring artist could want. This dynamic explains why abstract artists on TikTok are often labelled as “Basquiat clones,” while realistic artists are met with awe.

But this conversation often begins with a misunderstanding. Much of what TikTok art critics call modern art is confused with contemporary art. Modern art refers to an art period from as early as the 1860s to as late as the 1970s, while contemporary art spans from the 1970s to today. Moreover, the pieces that receive the most online mockery are typically conceptual art, a sub-movement within  contemporary art focused more on the concepts and ideas behind a piece than the piece itself. 

The internet—especially platforms like Instagram and Tiktok—amplifies these misunderstandings and influences non-artists to quickly become critical of the abstract art they encounter. As certain videos that have a negative perception of abstract art go viral, the ideal becomes ubiquitous. Viral videos mocking simpler or abstract museum pieces with captions such as “I hate modern art” create a bandwagon effect. Algorithms rapidly spread these perspectives, solidifying the general consensus surrounding abstract art, that being it has ruined what true artistry should be. 

But what defines real art? The term “art” is defined as a unique expression of creative or imaginative skill. Why, then, are abstract and imaginative artists met with such dislike? Moreover, why isn’t realism itself regarded as a mere recreation of what already exists?

In a traditional context, the disregard of abstract art makes perfect sense; Traditionally, realism has a greater level of technical skills, making it the benchmark for comparison and is celebrated for its meticulous attention to detail. Realism focuses on the technical skill and mimicry of the real world, requiring a particular attention to detail. Yet, this attention to detail can leave little room for imagination— which begs the question, is realism less creative in comparison to abstract art?

Abstract art does not require the same skill set as realism. The processes behind this style typically have more freedom, yet still have the potential to be as successful as realism. Abstract requires a different type of interpretation, as the ideas behind it are not as apparent. The complexity behind abstract pieces enriches them; they can communicate ideas that realism might not be able to express as effectively, moreover demanding a different type of intellectual and emotional engagement from the audience.

However, realism is not necessarily less creative in comparison to abstract-esque art.

For instance, photography—one of the most realistic art forms— relies on an understanding of precise timing and composition of real world scenes. But does realism not do that as well? 

Similarly, realistic art, especially when created without direct references, requires not only compositional knowledge, but also the ability to capture a moment and hold it as the real world scene may change. A more loosened definition of realism requires constructing mood and tones, depending on creating processes. Even hyper-realism focuses on creating details that are not emphasized in other forms of depictions, which in itself is a form of a creative process.  

Ultimately, the legitimacy of both of these forms of art do not depend on their skill base, but the development of the piece either based on the intellectual interpretation of the audience or the artist’s ability to evoke and project an idea. Whether an artwork is realistic or abstract, it has the potential to connect and challenge us, and that is what makes art “real”.